IRC log of tt on 2015-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:00:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:00:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:00:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #tt
15:00:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TTML
15:00:17 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:00:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15:00:18 [trackbot]
Date: 17 December 2015
15:03:04 [nigel]
Present+ nigel, andreas, pierre
15:03:07 [nigel]
chair: nigel
15:03:10 [nigel]
scribe: nigel
15:03:38 [atai2]
atai2 has joined #tt
15:05:28 [David]
David has joined #tt
15:06:35 [David]
Having problems logging in
15:07:05 [David]
Still working on in
15:07:57 [nigel]
Topic: This Meeting
15:08:30 [nigel]
nigel: I think for today we have IMSC substantive changes to review.
15:08:40 [nigel]
pal: Yes, I've updated the summary of substantive changes on the repo.
15:08:59 [nigel]
atai2: I want to give some info on the mapping document too.
15:09:02 [nigel]
nigel: Ok!
15:09:09 [nigel]
pal: Let's start with that then.
15:09:34 [nigel]
nigel: I think we can close off the 2015 process issue too.
15:09:39 [nigel]
Present+ tmichel
15:10:04 [nigel]
nigel: We also have the IMSC implementation report, and proposed new tests
15:10:16 [nigel]
nigel: AOB?
15:10:34 [nigel]
pal: I'd like to go over a bunch of pull requests and see if we can accept them - they're minor but they've only been out for a week.
15:10:57 [nigel]
Topic: Action Items
15:11:07 [nigel]
nigel: There's only one to cover that I'm aware of
15:11:10 [nigel]
15:11:10 [trackbot]
action-451 -- Thierry Michel to Investigate if we are required to move to the 2015 process -- due 2015-12-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:11:10 [trackbot]
15:12:16 [nigel]
nigel: I sent the call for consensus out on Friday 4th December so the 2 week period for review ends tomorrow. So far there have been no objections or negative comments of any kind.
15:13:29 [nigel]
Topic: TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document
15:13:43 [nigel]
atai2: I think there are minor edits and pull requests to correct some errors.
15:13:49 [nigel]
... We don't need to discuss them now.
15:14:10 [plehegar__]
plehegar__ has joined #tt
15:14:19 [nigel]
atai2: I had a call last week with Loretta to discuss how to proceed. I also talked to Simon about it in Sapporo. There was at least one
15:14:36 [nigel]
... problem at that time - we did the mapping according to the specs, but of course in real operation there is no complete implementation
15:14:49 [plehegar__]
present+ plh
15:14:53 [nigel]
... and there are interoperability issues where different browsers implement different features, so those features aren't safe to use.
15:15:19 [nigel]
... The other thing is that there are substantive changes that Simon has made to the WebVTT spec.
15:15:52 [nigel]
... On the first point we did not come to a conclusion. One approach is to check what is really supported and indicate in the spec
15:16:10 [nigel]
... what mapping is desirable vs what might be practically needed to make it work. Loretta made the point that we should base the mapping
15:16:30 [nigel]
... on the specs not the implementations. Overall what we agreed is to try to fix errors, and make some examples, and start from there.
15:17:01 [nigel]
... That's the most obvious and fruitful work for the mapping document, then we have to see how WebVTT goes towards Rec to know what
15:17:06 [nigel]
... features we can really count on.
15:17:16 [plehegar__]
q+ for a side comment
15:17:25 [nigel]
15:17:35 [nigel]
zakim, ack
15:17:35 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ack', nigel
15:17:42 [nigel]
ack plehegar__
15:17:42 [Zakim]
plehegar__, you wanted to discuss a side comment
15:18:02 [pal]
pal has joined #tt
15:18:20 [nigel]
plehegar__: I've missed out on what Loretta's github user is, so I can add her to the repo.
15:18:26 [nigel]
atai2: It should be there.
15:19:17 [nigel]
Present+ dronca
15:20:07 [nigel]
nigel: That seems like a good way forward, and good to know you're working on it with Loretta.
15:21:10 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC Substantive Changes
15:21:28 [pal]
15:21:29 [nigel]
pal: Nigel and I have gone through the changes and categorised them. There are some substantive changes.
15:22:20 [nigel]
nigel: So those are the substantive changes, and also there are a bunch that are not substantive.
15:22:23 [nigel]
pal: That's correct.
15:23:34 [nigel]
nigel: Do we have a Director's call booked to go through the substantive changes, as needed to transition from CR to CR?
15:23:58 [nigel]
plh: We will care about what wide review there was on those changes. The Director needs to be reassured that either the changes do not
15:24:35 [nigel]
... affect the wide review or have been reviewed. If it's straightforward then I can sit down with Ralph and go through them.
15:25:53 [nigel]
nigel: We have not sought wide review on any of the changes - they have all come from group member comments. However I would
15:26:26 [nigel]
... say that although they are substantive they are all clarifications that make the spec say what it meant before, or looked like it meant.
15:26:30 [nigel]
pal: I'd agree with that.
15:26:39 [nigel]
plh: Tell me more about issue-79
15:27:14 [nigel]
pal: There are two ways to indicate profile in TTML and it was unclear before. Following discussions we decided to omit the ttp:profile element.
15:27:59 [nigel]
... There is no formal profile document for IMSC 1 and there were identified limitations to the profile element. To make it clear we have now
15:28:15 [nigel]
... prohibited the element and encouraged use of the attribute.
15:28:26 [nigel]
plh: Can I say that SMPTE and EBU are happy with the change?
15:28:56 [nigel]
atai2: For example, EBU-TT-D, which is a subset of IMSC, also prohibits the ttp:element and the ttp:attribute. If they were required in the
15:29:14 [nigel]
... document then it would be impossible to make EBU-TT-D a subset of IMSC, so EBU is fine with this.
15:29:37 [nigel]
plh: In that case my recommendation is we don't do a Director's call, and I arrange it with the Director. I don't think we can publish
15:29:49 [nigel]
... before the moratorium. Unless you want to be around I can get the approval to publish.
15:29:53 [nigel]
nigel: Sounds good to me!
15:30:16 [nigel]
plh: I'm going to request approval tomorrow afternoon, so you can prepare the document for publication.
15:30:48 [nigel]
pal: Excellent. Nigel mentioned that there's 1 issue here, which is on the 2015 process adoption. Nigel issued a call for consensus for that
15:30:59 [nigel]
... which ends tomorrow, so by tomorrow afternoon you'll have a clean document.
15:31:19 [nigel]
plh: In general we allow 7 days between the publication request and the publication. Tomorrow we will get the okay to publish.
15:31:40 [nigel]
pal: Okay, then the other thing is to go through the open pull requests and since we have a quorum make a decision on them.
15:32:25 [nigel]
nigel: Just to confirm, we're not changing the CR exit criteria, and the earliest date will be the minimum after publication.
15:32:31 [nigel]
plh: That's 4 weeks.
15:32:49 [nigel]
... You'll also trigger a 60 day call for exclusion due to the substantive changes.
15:33:07 [nigel]
nigel: That doesn't need a document change does it?
15:33:12 [nigel]
plh: Correct, it just happens.
15:33:32 [nigel]
Topic: IMSC Pull Requests
15:33:52 [nigel]
pal: PR #106 changes the old process reference to the new one.
15:33:55 [pal]
15:34:33 [nigel]
nigel: A tool for IRC to generate github links would be nice!
15:34:53 [nigel]
plh: We can ask Santa Clause! Actually the gitter tool integrates chat with git nicely.
15:35:14 [nigel]
nigel: Everyone's happy with that, what's next?
15:35:21 [nigel]
pal: PR #110
15:35:21 [pal]
15:35:27 [nigel]
15:35:37 [nigel]
pal: This is for issue 110.
15:35:56 [nigel]
pal: This reminds the user that only cell units can be used for line padding.
15:36:06 [nigel]
nigel: That's editorial.
15:36:14 [nigel]
pal: Yes, and factual.
15:36:19 [nigel]
atai2: It's a good important note.
15:36:38 [pal]
15:36:39 [nigel]
pal: I'll merge those later. Next is #120
15:37:33 [nigel]
pal: This one clarifies which of #backgroundColor-inline and -block and -region are permitted in the image profile, since they're used as fallback in SMPTE-TT.
15:37:56 [nigel]
... That change falls in the general category of clarifying feature tables and making everything explicit.
15:38:15 [nigel]
... They were not forbidden before but now it is explicit that they are permitted. (block and region)
15:38:37 [nigel]
... -inline is prohibited because there's no inline content. It was before, but now it's absolutely explicit.
15:38:45 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #tt
15:38:53 [nigel]
... The next one is on the same lines. #121
15:39:00 [pal]
15:40:10 [nigel]
pal: span was prohibited in image profile, so nested-span, which was implicitly prohibited is now noted as being prohibited. That's purely editorial.
15:40:39 [pal]
15:40:40 [nigel]
pal: Next is #122
15:41:18 [nigel]
... This resolves a number of related issues, all to do with TTML1 features being derived from other features - if one is prohibited then the
15:41:47 [nigel]
... parent feature has no single disposition. This pull request clarifies that.
15:42:05 [nigel]
... It does so by pointing the reader to the relevant children features that the reader ought to look at.
15:42:43 [nigel]
... For example #visibility -> (#visibility-region, #visibility-block etc). Some are prohibited, others forbidden.
15:43:06 [nigel]
... This is essentially just an editorial change.
15:43:35 [nigel]
pal: Next one is more substantive: #123
15:43:38 [pal]
15:44:10 [nigel]
pal: I've followed up with CFF-TT folks on this. The current text limits the number of presented images per region to 1, which has been clear
15:44:33 [nigel]
... for a long time. However what it did not say is that the number of div elements per presented region ought also to be 1. It would be possible
15:44:57 [nigel]
... to create a document with 2 divs in a presented region, only one being a presented image. One of the div elements would be empty,
15:45:18 [nigel]
... and could have a background colour, but that wasn't intended. Glenn pointed out that you could have 2 divs both with an image, but one
15:45:38 [nigel]
... not presented because it falls outside the region. The proposal here is to clarify the text that there can only be one div element per
15:45:43 [nigel]
... presented region in image profile.
15:46:16 [nigel]
... This clarifies the intent. I don't know why anyone would have created more than 1 div per region, but now they clearly cannot.
15:46:23 [nigel]
nigel: And it's had review?
15:46:52 [nigel]
pal: It was not clear in CFF-TT and when I followed up with folks there everyone agreed with this intent and nobody could think of a reason
15:46:56 [nigel]
... to do anything differently.
15:47:16 [nigel]
nigel: Any more?
15:47:20 [nigel]
pal: Those are all of them.
15:47:26 [nigel]
nigel: Okay, so everyone seems to be happy with all of those.
15:47:48 [nigel]
pal: I'll merge those all and create a CR3 version and send an email to the reflector with the proposed CR3 document.
15:47:54 [nigel]
nigel: Fantastic, thank you.
15:48:00 [nigel]
pal: Thank you all - I think the document is a lot clearer.
15:49:56 [nigel]
nigel: Just looking at the outstanding issues, there are some unresolved ones, one of which is associated with a formal objection
15:50:34 [nigel]
... that, since we have been unable to reach a consensus, I propose we take forward to the Director. This is an objection to transition to a new CR.
15:51:07 [nigel]
plh: This is a different thing now - we will need a Director's call after all. Is the spec ready for CR3?
15:51:23 [nigel]
pal: This is issue 111.
15:51:35 [tmichel]
objection is:
15:51:38 [tmichel]
Unless and until a fallback profile is mandated normatively in IMSC1, SKYNAV formally objects to any new CR being published.
15:51:44 [nigel]
pal: There is not even consensus that the issue is a real issue. That's fundamental.
15:52:13 [nigel]
pal: There's also consensus that Glenn's proposed solution does not work. And thirdly despite much effort online and offline there has been
15:52:33 [nigel]
... no consensus to a solution to the problem. Fourthly, there are no other strong objections to the current text.
15:52:55 [nigel]
plh: Translating, the group has not yet made a clear decision but believes that this should not prevent update of the specification with the
15:53:16 [nigel]
... issue remaining open within the working group. Is that an appropriate summary?
15:53:34 [nigel]
nigel: Yes, I think that is an appropriate summary.
15:53:58 [nigel]
plh: At some point the group will have to take a position, whether to accept or reject Glenn's position. I need a decision from the group.
15:54:40 [nigel]
plh: Either you close the issue or keep it open and decide not make it a blocker to CR.
15:55:46 [nigel]
nigel: I think it was my proposal at the beginning to do the latter.
15:55:53 [nigel]
plh: It needs to be a decision not a proposal.
15:56:33 [nigel]
nigel: Okay, I'm formally proposing to move to CR3 without closing issue 111. Any objections to that?
15:57:45 [nigel]
tmichel: The only thing I can see here is that we may need a further CR.
15:58:16 [nigel]
nigel: We're caught here because the process has changed under our feet - we would be auto publishing a WD if we were still in WD.
15:58:32 [nigel]
plh: You can return to WD - I don't think it would worsen the outlook.
15:58:50 [nigel]
pal: I think we should record that for issue 111 the group chooses to proceed with the current text with Glenn as the sole objector.
15:59:33 [nigel]
nigel: So right now we have no objections to my proposal, so I'm going to record it as a decision.
15:59:43 [nigel]
tmichel: I think this is better than going back to WD which would send a wrong signal.
16:00:06 [nigel]
pal: I think the group has been responsive to every comment and has processed all comments and proposed resolutions sometimes with substantive changes.
16:00:17 [nigel]
... In this case the consensus is there may not be a problem and the solution proposed is not acceptable.
16:00:39 [nigel]
plh: In order to update CR the process does not require you to address all issues. That would apply to PR though.
16:00:46 [nigel]
pal: And the resolution can be to dispose of the issue.
16:00:50 [nigel]
plh: That's correct.
16:01:48 [nigel]
nigel: For the minutes, we have decided to proceed with the request to transition to CR3 with issue 111 remaining open, despite the formal objection.
16:02:05 [nigel]
nigel: This will be resolved before we move to PR.
16:02:11 [nigel]
plh: Then we may need a Director's call.
16:02:39 [nigel]
... We will need to know more about #111 precisely. I can try to represent it. I recommend that we have a Director's call.
16:03:14 [nigel]
nigel: Can we schedule that?
16:03:49 [nigel]
plh: Today, afternoon between 1pm and 4:30pm is open, or tomorrow 3-4pm Eastern. Otherwise next week, could be Monday afternoon.
16:05:27 [nigel]
nigel: Of those choices I would prefer 3pm tomorrow, being 8pm UTC.
16:05:50 [nigel]
tmichel: I'll try to be there but not 100%. I don't want to be on the critical path.
16:06:08 [nigel]
pal: Tomorrow at noon (pacific) is fine for me.
16:06:23 [nigel]
plh: Alright, so I'll send a confirmation email with call information, after the transition request.
16:06:36 [nigel]
tmichel: Is there other stuff we need to prepare? We have the list of substantive changes...
16:06:54 [nigel]
plh: Actually, looking at the list of substantive changes, which should I use, the latest set?
16:07:11 [nigel]
pal: In the next couple of hours I will prepare a CR3 and point to the specific list of changes that need to be presented.
16:07:45 [nigel]
plh: I'm only interested in the changes since CR2.
16:07:55 [nigel]
pal: That's the latest list, but one pull request from this morning will need to be added.
16:08:15 [nigel]
plh: Fine by me, I'll add that to the issues list and note issue 111.
16:08:30 [nigel]
... We have to talk about it since there is a formal objection.
16:09:14 [nigel]
plh: I expect this to take 30 minutes at most tomorrow. I assume it will be Ralph Swick who is Director, otherwise I will need to sync with timbl's calendar. Hopefully we can keep it simple.
16:09:32 [nigel]
plh: Okay, thank you.
16:10:14 [nigel]
nigel: Thanks everyone, whatever you do over the holiday period, enjoy it! [adjourns meeting]
16:10:19 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:10:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:22:48 [nigel]
s/Having problems logging in/
16:22:58 [nigel]
s/Still working on in/
16:24:18 [nigel]
i/Topic: IMSC Substantive/plh and atai liaise re getting Loretta added to the github repo for the mapping document
16:29:15 [fwtnb]
fwtnb has joined #tt
16:29:28 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:29:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:31:07 [nigel]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
16:31:08 [nigel]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate nigel
16:37:00 [nigel]
nigel has joined #tt
17:30:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt